Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 – The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) at a glance

In May 2024, the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) was published in the Official Journal of the EU with Regulation (EU) 2024/1083. For the first time, the EU is thus creating a common legal framework for media freedom and pluralism in all member states. The aim of the regulation is to protect and promote fundamental principles such as editorial independence, media plurality and free cross-border media offerings in the internal market.

The background to the EMFA are worrying developments in some countries: state intervention in the media, political influence on public broadcasters, non-transparent media ownership structures and fragmented national regulations to protect media freedom. In addition, digitalization and the market power of large online platforms are contributing to journalistic content being exposed to new threats.

The EMFA responds to these challenges with binding rules for media companies, online platforms and public authorities. It supplements existing EU regulations such as the Digital Services Regulation (DSA) and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) with sector-specific requirements for the media sector. The regulation has been in force since May 7, 2024 and – after transitional periods – will apply directly in all member states from August 2025. The key content of the EMFA is presented below in a structured manner.

Editorial freedom and protection from state intervention

The core of the EMFA is the guarantee of the editorial independence of media and the protection of journalistic work from state influence. Article 4 EMFA lays down a comprehensive requirement for the Member States to respect the actual editorial freedom of media service providers. Accordingly, neither state bodies nor regulatory authorities may attempt to influence editorial decisions or interfere with the content of media (Art. 4 Para. 2 EMFA). This prohibition of intervention aims to prohibit any form of indirect censorship – it corresponds to the spirit of Art. 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and also the prohibition of censorship in Art. 5 para. 1 sentence 3 of the German Basic Law.

In addition, the EMFA explicitly strengthens the protection of journalistic sources and communications. Article 4(3) EMFA prohibits Member States from forcing media or journalists to disclose information about confidential sources. It also prohibits the surveillance, interception, search or seizure of media professionals or their contacts if this is intended to locate sources. Even the use of spyware on the devices of journalists or their contacts is generally prohibited. These clear requirements set high hurdles for state intervention: they take up proven principles of case law (in particular of the ECtHR and BVerfG) on the protection of sources and now make them the EU-wide standard.

However, the EMFA recognizes that state measures may be necessary in exceptional cases. Article 4 para. 4-6 EMFA contains narrowly defined exceptions: An intervention – such as a search in a newsroom or the use of surveillance software – may only take place if it is provided for by law, is necessary and proportionate to pursue an overriding legitimate interest and has been approved in advance by an independent court (Art. 4 para. 4 EMFA). In the case of the use of spyware, it is also necessary that the purpose is to investigate particularly serious criminal offenses (Art. 4 para. 5 EMFA). These requirements ensure that journalistic protection rights may only be restricted in cases of serious danger – such as terrorism – and under judicial control. Automatic mass surveillance of media professionals is therefore clearly excluded.

Overall, the EMFA thus enshrines robust protection of press freedom at Union level. This does not mean a radical change for Germany, as Article 5 of the Basic Law provides for similar protection. Rather, the EMFA supplements the protection of fundamental rights and creates binding minimum standards in all EU member states. German journalists benefit directly: Their sources and data are now better protected against state spying throughout Europe.

Requirements for public media organizations

Another focus of the EMFA is on the independence of public service broadcasters. Public broadcasters play a central role in democratic opinion-forming in many member states, including Germany. However, their proximity to the state harbors the risk of political influence. Article 5 EMFA therefore obliges Member States to ensure effective safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers.

Specifically, Art. 5 Para. 1 EMFA requires public broadcasters to be able to act independently in editorial and organizational terms and to fulfil their public programming mandate impartially. In particular, procedures for the appointment and dismissal of management bodies must be designed in such a way that independence is maintained (Art. 5 Para. 2 EMFA). Managing directors or directors of public broadcasters must be selected according to transparent, open and non-discriminatory procedures based on objective criteria. Their term of office must be long enough to allow for actual independence. Dismissal before the end of the term of office may only take place for good cause, must be sufficiently justified and must provide legal protection (judicial review) for those affected. The EMFA thus lays down principles that have already been initiated in Germany by case law (such as the 2014 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in the ZDF case): less political proportionality in personnel decisions and effective legal protection against dismissal.

According to the EMFA, the financing of public service media must also meet special criteria. Art. 5 para. 3 EMFA requires transparent and objective funding procedures that ensure adequate, sufficient and predictable resources. Funding should be such that editorial independence is not jeopardized – e.g. no annual arbitrary budget cuts as a means of exerting pressure. Multi-year financing decisions are expressly recommended. In principle, this approach is in line with the German system of financing contributions through the broadcasting fee, which is also based on stability and independence from the state. However, problems such as the politically blocked contribution adjustment in 2020/21 show that such guidelines remain important: The EMFA could encourage member states to introduce procedures that further reduce political influence on budgets.

Finally, Art. 5 para. 4 EMFA obliges states to set up independent bodies to monitor compliance with the aforementioned requirements. These supervisory mechanisms must be free from political interference; their observations on the governance of public service media should be published. In Germany, there are already bodies such as broadcasting councils and television councils that monitor program independence, as well as commissions such as the KEF that determine financial requirements. The German legislator will examine whether these bodies meet the requirements of the EMFA or whether new external control bodies need to be created. It would be conceivable to strengthen the existing broadcasting bodies or to set up a coordinating body at state level to document compliance with the EMFA principles.

Overall, the EMFA is likely to cause little conflict in the German context, but will require some adjustments. Article 5 of the Basic Law guarantees freedom of broadcasting; the EMFA substantiates this through procedural safeguards. According to German constitutional law, the organization of broadcasting falls under the sovereignty of the federal states (cultural and broadcasting sovereignty). However, the EU can set certain minimum standards here due to the regulation’s connection to the internal market (Art. 114 TFEU as the legal basis). These are in line with the common goal of maintaining independent public broadcasting – a goal to which the Interstate Media Treaty of the federal states is also committed. However, the Interstate Media Treaty (MStV) itself does not yet contain any detailed specifications on the internal organization of public broadcasters; these are regulated in separate Interstate Broadcasting Treaties. The federal and state governments will have to adapt the regulations here by 2025, for example to transpose the transparency of appointment procedures required in Art. 5 EMFA or the explicit protection against political dismissal into German law.

Transparency obligations: Ownership and government advertising

In order to promote media pluralism and prevent hidden influence, the EMFA prescribes extensive transparency obligations for media companies. Even in the recitals, the regulation emphasizes how crucial it is for citizens’ trust to know who owns a medium and who is behind its financing. This is the only way to identify potential conflicts of interest and assess the reliability of information.

Disclosure of ownership structures

Article 6 (1) EMFA obliges all media service providers to make certain up-to-date information easily accessible to their audience. This includes in particular

• Name and contact details of the provider (usually already included in the legal notice),
• Direct or indirect owners who can exert a significant influence on the company (e.g. shareholders with controlling interests, including government bodies as shareholders),
• Ultimately, beneficialowners as defined by money laundering law – i.e. the natural persons who hold more than 25% of the shares or exercise control in the background via corporate networks,
• Income from government support in the form of advertising: specifically, the total annual amount that the medium receives from government* advertising, as well as the sum of any advertising income from authorities from non-EU countries (e.g. advertisements by government agencies from third countries).

This disclosure obligation is intended to enable readers to see at a glance who the owners are and whether a medium benefits significantly from state funding. In the print and online sector in particular, there was previously no such extensive obligation in Germany: although press law typically requires an imprint with the publisher and responsible parties, the shareholdings subject to disclosure were limited. Under EMFA, indirect shareholdings and beneficial owners must now also be disclosed. Media companies will therefore review their ownership structure and publish this information on their website (possibly in the masthead section or in a transparency report). This may be straightforward for small publishers (e.g. “Owner: Max Mustermann”). However, more complex media companies must disclose the ownership structure down to the last natural person.

In addition, the national authorities are to set up public databases on media ownership (Art. 6 (2) EMFA). This means that a register will be created in each Member State in which the disclosed media information can be accessed centrally. Such a database further increases transparency and enables journalists and the public, for example, to research cross-media ownership links. In Germany, this task could fall to the state media authorities or a new federal agency. To date, there is no central media ownership register, only scattered commercial register data and partial media concentration reports for broadcasting. The EMFA calls for a new infrastructure for transparency, which will entail a certain amount of administrative work.

Rules for government advertising and commercial relations

In addition to disclosure by the media, the EMFA also aims to ensure transparency and fairness in state media funding. State advertising – broadly defined as any paid communication measure by public bodies in the media (from advertising campaigns to image advertising by state-owned companies) – should no longer be a gray area in which hidden influence or favoritism can flourish.

The regulation prescribes common principles for the award of state advertising: It must be based on transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria (Recital 73 EMFA). In practical terms, this means that public bodies – from ministries and state authorities to local authorities – may not allocate their advertising budgets according to political convenience. Instead, award criteria (such as reach, target group fit, price-performance ratio) should be published in advance. The procedures should be designed to be competitive and fair so that a variety of media – national and local, large and small – have a chance to win advertising contracts.

At the same time, the EMFA requires mandatory publication of the recipients of state advertising expenditure and the respective amounts. Member States must ensure that information on which media have received what volume of state advertising is made publicly available in electronic form. This transparency is intended to reduce the risk of hidden subsidies: if, for example, a government specifically allocates large advertising budgets to certain well-meaning media, this would be traceable and open to public discussion in future.

In Germany, such rules could cause friction with federal structures, as government advertising is allocated on a decentralized basis by countless bodies (federal, state, local and public authorities). To date, there has been no uniform publicity about how much money the public sector spends on media advertising overall. The EMFA will probably require the introduction of a reporting and publication system. For example, it would be possible to report annually on how much advertising money has been spent on which media – similar to the transparency registers that already exist in the area of public procurement.

Legally, these requirements should be compatible with the German framework: Although Article 5 of the Basic Law regulates freedom of the press, transparency about state funds does not constitute an encroachment, but rather good administrative practice. Conflicts with the Interstate Media Treaty are unlikely, as this area – state advertising contracts – has not yet been specifically standardized. Rather, the EMFA requirements supplement German public procurement law and prevent the exemption of the media sector from the traditional awarding of contracts (e.g. for editorial content, cf. section 12 (2) no. 1 VOL/A) from being abused. Authorities will have to adapt their procurement practices in order to comply with the EMFA principles, which can be particularly positive for small media: Local and independent media houses are more likely to get a chance at government advertising placements if these are tendered transparently and not awarded behind closed doors.

Obligations of very large online platforms in dealing with journalistic content

In view of the growing importance of online platforms for the dissemination of news, the EMFA is also dedicated to the protection of journalistic content in the digital space. Large platforms such as social networks, video platforms and search engines act as gatekeepers to news for many people. Accordingly, their algorithms and moderation decisions can have a considerable influence on which media content is visible. In order to prevent journalistic contributions from being unjustifiably deleted, blocked or downgraded, the EMFA contains special obligations for “very large online platforms” (VLOPs) as defined by the DSA (i.e. services with over 45 million users in the EU).

The objective of these regulations is clear: editorial content should be protected from automatic deletion or visibility restrictions as long as it does not violate the law. The background to this are cases in which algorithmic filter systems erroneously mark legitimate media content as a violation – for example, images from war zones that are blocked as “violence” or investigative content that is wrongly classified as disinformation. The EMFA is now creating procedural safeguards here.

Essentially, the regulation requires VLOPs to exercise particular care when taking action against content from recognized media providers: Before a platform deletes content from a media service or restricts its visibility (e.g. by de-listing or “shadow banning”), it must inform and consult the media company concerned in advance. Specifically, the EMFA stipulates that the platform must provide a justification for the planned removal or blocking – with reference to the relevant community standards or T&C rules that the content allegedly violates. This written notification corresponds to the transparency requirements of the DSA (Art. 17 DSA) and the P2B Regulation, but goes one step further in the media context:

The media service provider must be given the opportunity to respond to the notification and explain its position within 24 hours. Only after this period has expired – or after the media service provider has responded – may the platform make the final decision and take appropriate measures. In urgent cases, such as in a defined crisis in accordance with Art. 36 para. 2 DSA (e.g. disinformation campaigns during war), the deadline can be shortened, but the media provider must still have a reasonable opportunity to react. As soon as the platform has made a decision (e.g. the block remains in place), the media service must be informed immediately.

These procedural obligations ensure that no automated deletion is carried out blindly without the affected medium being able to comment. This helps to avoid wrong decisions – for example, a news service can explain to the platform why a seemingly problematic video belongs in its news context and is not a breach of the rules. This is particularly important for small news portals or freelance journalists, as it allows them to defend themselves against unjustified moderation before the damage (invisibility of their content) occurs.

In addition to this prior involvement, the EMFA stipulates that complaints from media services must be prioritized. Platforms must design their internal complaint and resolution systems (known from Art. 20 DSA) in such a way that complaints from media service providers are examined and decided on immediately and with priority. Media can be represented by associations, which helps freelance journalists in particular, who can make their voices heard through press associations, for example.

If a media service discovers that a platform is repeatedly restricting its content without good reason, it is entitled to a dialog with the platform (Art. 17 para. 6 EMFA, mutatis mutandis). The platform must then cooperate in good faith with the media service in order to find an amicable solution and avoid future unjustified blocking. The media service can inform the newly established EU body (see next section) and the EU Commission about such cases and even request an opinion from the body. This creates an escalation option if platforms are stubborn despite the requirements – the EU board can make recommendations on how the platform should proceed in future in order to respect media freedom.

It is important to note that this privilege is not unlimited. Illegal content or clearly unlawful posts from the media are not protected – the platform may and must remove such content in accordance with the DSA and other laws (in such cases, the EMFA stipulates that the special rules do not apply, for example when it comes to terrorist propaganda or criminal hate speech). Fake profiles that claim to be “media” without authorization are also not protected. A media service must presumably meet certain criteria or make a declaration that it adheres to journalistic due diligence in order to benefit from the treatment described. The EMFA mentions a declaration by the media service (probably in Art. 17 para. 1 EMFA) in which it commits to basic journalistic standards – such as compliance with the law and responsibility for content. This serves to prevent “rogue media”, which only claim media freedom for the sake of appearances (e.g. foreign disinformation channels), from coming under the protective umbrella. The declaration is not an obstacle for genuine media, as reputable providers work according to such standards anyway (e.g. compliance with the press code).

Overall, the EMFA significantly strengthens the position of the media in relation to large tech platforms. For German media companies – whether large publishing houses or local online newspapers – the new rules mean additional legal protection in the digital space: their published content can no longer simply disappear automatically without a justification and hearing. Should a platform nevertheless act arbitrarily, there is a forum at EU level to examine the case. Ultimately, this also underpins Article 5 of the Basic Law, which protects the dissemination of information: Where previously private platform rules effectively represented the “new threat of censorship”, the EU is now drawing in boundaries to preserve journalistic content. Conflicts with German law are hardly to be feared in this respect – rather an addition to the regulatory framework with aspects that could not be regulated nationally (as platforms often do not operate nationally, but across Europe).

European Board for Media Services

The EMFA creates a new institution at EU level to implement and monitor the new rules: the European Board for Media Services (Art. 8 EMFA). This body is designed as an independent body that bundles the cooperation of the national media supervisory authorities and is intended to ensure the consistent application of the law.

The Board is made up of representatives of the respective national regulatory authorities responsible for the media (Art. 10 Para. 1 EMFA). In Germany, this would probably be the Directors’ Conference of the State Media Authorities (for private broadcasting and telemedia) and possibly representatives for the press sector – although it needs to be clarified which body is officially delegated here, as there is currently no state regulatory authority for the press. It is conceivable that Germany will appoint a representative of the state media authorities, which traditionally also supervise the protection of minors and media intermediaries. In any case, each member state has one vote on the committee; decisions are to be taken by a two-thirds majority (Art. 10 Para. 2-3). The EU Commission participates as an observer without voting rights (Art. 10 Para. 6).

Organizationally, the Board replaces the previously informal ERGA (European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services), which existed under the AVMSD (Art. 8 (2) EMFA). However, the new body has a broader agenda than ERGA, which primarily focused on audiovisual media. It will focus on all media sectors, including the press and digital media, insofar as these are covered by the EMFA. Importantly, the Board acts independently and may not accept instructions from governments (Art. 9 EMFA). Its independence is also supported by the fact that the EU Commission provides a secretariat (Art. 11 EMFA), which takes on the administrative tasks and provides technical support to the Board without intervening itself.

The tasks of the European Media Board are manifold: According to the EMFA (in particular Art. 12 ff.), it should promote the uniform application of the Media Freedom Act and have a coordinating effect on cross-border media issues. For example, the Board:

• The committee will draw up guidelines and opinions, for example on the implementation of transparency obligations (e.g. how media ownership databases are specifically designed) or on criteria for the fair allocation of advertising by the state. It is expressly envisaged that the committee can issue statements on media ownership databases and other topics in consultation with the Commission.
• Mediate in disputes between national authorities – for example, if a measure in one Member State affects the media freedom of a provider from another state, the Board can be consulted.
• Monitor concentration developments: The Regulation requires Member States to review major media market concentrations for their impact on plurality of opinion and editorial independence. The Board should play a role here, e.g. by evaluating national reports and exchanging best practices. The aim is to prevent media policy decisions in one country from compromising the EU’s internal market objectives (free flow of information, pluralism).
• The Board will also be able to be called upon in cases of repeated platform conflicts (as described above) and make recommendations to bring about solutions.
• Finally, the committee should maintain an overall overview of the situation of media freedom in the EU and, if necessary, issue warnings if systematic problems arise (e.g. state intimidation of media in any country, manipulative foreign influence, etc.).

The European Board for Media Services thus marks a paradigm shift: for the first time, there is a formal European media supervisory cooperation beyond the purely audiovisual sector. While media supervision in terms of content remains national (e.g. press supervision traditionally through self-regulation), the Board ensures that the boundaries and guidelines set out in the EMFA are respected uniformly everywhere.

In Germany, dovetailing with the existing media authority structure could be a particular challenge. The Interstate Media Treaty already has a commission (KJM) for the protection of minors and the KEK for concentration control in broadcasting. The KEK has been examining media concentrations in the TV sector for years and publishes reports on dominant market positions (e.g. audience shares). The EMFA is now calling for an assessment of “significant media market concentrations” in terms of diversity of opinion. This is likely to be similar to the tasks of the CEC, but possibly cross-sectoral (print, online and broadcasting combined). The Board could assess cross-border mergers or recommend minimum standards for national merger reviews. For example, if a large publisher acquires newspapers in several EU countries, national authorities could exchange information via the Board in order to preserve European media diversity.

As the Board has purely coordinating and advisory functions, conflicts with German constitutional law are unlikely. The sovereignty of the federal states over culture and media is not undermined, as the board cannot make any sovereign decisions in Germany – but it does give a voice to the European dimension of media supervision. For German media regulators, it means additional work and cooperation: for example, regular meetings at EU level, the preparation of reports and statements. In the long term, however, this could also protect German interests by ensuring that abuses in other countries do not go unnoticed (e.g. politicization of public broadcasters in Member State X), which indirectly affect the competitive framework of German media.

New obligations and compliance for small media and journalists

The EMFA is explicitly aimed not only at large corporations or the state, but also at all media service providers, including small publishers, local broadcasters and freelance journalists, provided they offer editorial services for the general public. What practical changes will these players face?

Firstly, the transparency obligations: By 2025, every media provider must check their own publication to see what information must be disclosed in accordance with Art. 6 EMFA. For one-person journalists or small online magazines, this is usually easy – they have to clarify who they are (name/contact) and whether there are other owners (usually no except the owner themselves). However, if, for example, a local news portal has an investor in the background, its identity must be disclosed. Shares held by public bodies (e.g. a city holds a stake in an advertising journal) must also be disclosed. All media must also disclose annually whether they have received money for advertisements from public bodies. A freelance journalist with his own blog, for example, would disclose here if he had placed an advertising campaign for a ministry. Although government advertising mainly concerns traditional media (traditional print ads, radio spots), it also includes online banners from a town hall on a local news portal. Accordingly, even smaller media must keep track of such income and publish it.

These transparency requirements mean a compliance effort that remains manageable: It involves collecting and annually updating some data. Many media companies already have this information internally (e.g. from the investment report or accounting). The only new aspect is that it must be published proactively. Media companies should therefore establish processes to reliably record EMFA data (owners, beneficial owners, government advertising revenue) and make it available on their website, for example. Larger publishing houses could publish annual transparency reports for this purpose. For small companies, an “About us” section with the required information is probably sufficient. It should be noted that the information must be kept up to date in the event of changes (e.g. a new principal owner joins the company).

One delicate point could be the disclosure of beneficial owners – especially if there are wealthy private individuals behind a medium who previously wished to remain anonymous. Here, the interest in transparency potentially collides with data protection or personal rights. However, the EMFA gives greater weight to the public interest: particularly in the case of politically influential media (“politically exposed” owners), the public should know who is behind the media. In Germany, this is supported in principle by the transparency register (for companies) and press law, so there are no insurmountable legal hurdles. Nevertheless, media lawyers must prepare their clients for the fact that the anonymity of media patrons is no longer guaranteed – the new rule is mandatory throughout the EU.

Furthermore, Art. 6 para. 3 EMFA requires news providers to take internal measures to ensure editorial independence. This is primarily aimed at the media companies themselves: They should take suitable precautions to ensure that editorial offices can work free from undue influence (for example, from owners or advertisers). The law explicitly states the aim of disclosing conflicts and enabling free decisions to be made within the framework of the defined editorial line. In practice, this means that editorial offices and publishers should review their editorial statutes, compliance rules or codes of conduct. Many – especially larger – media already have guidelines, e.g. on the separation of editorial and publishing (“Chinese wall” between the advertising department and the editorial department) or on the treatment of vested interests. The EMFA also motivates smaller editorial offices to formulate such principles. For example, a local publisher could stipulate in writing that the editor-in-chief may report without instructions and that owners have no influence on certain sensitive topics. Or freelance journalists could make it transparent when they write about topics in which they are personally involved (conflict of interest). Although these obligations are somewhat vague (“measures they deem appropriate”), they do set a standard against which they must be measured. Should a dispute arise (e.g. a dismissed editor claims that the owner interfered politically in the reporting), the question of whether the publisher had or neglected to take the internal protective measures required under EMFA could also be relevant in future. Clients – especially small media companies – should therefore be advised to voluntarily introduce an editorial statute or a code of conduct that meets the EMFA objectives. This not only promotes compliance, but also the trust of the readership.

For freelance journalists, the EMFA brings not only obligations but above all new rights. They now enjoy uniform minimum protection from arbitrary state action throughout Europe (searches, seizures, surveillance – inadmissible except in the case of the most serious criminal offenses and with a warrant). This also strengthens their position in Germany, for example when cross-border investigations take place. In addition, independent media professionals will in future be able to rely on the EMFA rules in the event of problems with platforms: If, for example, a freelance journalist’s YouTube channel is blocked due to alleged breaches of terms and conditions, she can demand the procedures provided for in the regulation (statement of reasons, hearing, expedited complaint). In practice, this should initially go through the platform’s complaints management systems, but if necessary, a complaint could also be lodged with the competent authority, which could then involve the Board.

However, in order to benefit from these advantages, individual journalists should ensure that they are considered media service providers within the meaning of the Regulation. The definition of “media service” in the EMFA is based on whether content is disseminated under editorial responsibility (Art. 2 EMFA). A journalistic blog or YouTube channel may fall under this definition if it regularly provides news/information content. It is conceivable that platforms may require media providers to self-declare or register in order to treat them as privileged. It could therefore make sense for freelancers to join an industry organization (press association or similar) or to make it clear on their own website that they follow journalistic due diligence standards. In case of doubt, you can then prove to a platform or authority that you meet the criteria of a reputable media service.

In summary, smaller media and journalists are faced with a certain amount of new organizational obligations (providing transparency information, observing internal independence rules) – but at the same time they also gain rights and legal certainty in the exercise of their profession. The efforts of compliance are therefore in the name of a greater good: the strengthening of media freedom and reporting with integrity throughout the EU. Lawyers in media law will have to support their clients in the coming months in implementing these new requirements, for example by advising on the creation of a compliant imprint or the drafting of editorial guidelines, as well as in the exercise of new rights (e.g. proceedings before the Media Board).

Outlook: Importance of the EMFA for media freedom and pluralism

The European Media Freedom Act represents a milestone in European media policy. For the first time, there is a binding legal act that goes beyond pure market regulation and directly sets standards for the media sector that safeguard freedom. At a time when the press has come under pressure in parts of Europe – with politicized media supervision, the oligarchization of media markets and state propaganda – the EU is drawing a red line with the EMFA: media freedom and media diversity are essential foundations of democracy and must not be up for discussion in the internal market.

For Germany, with its long tradition of strong press freedom (Article 5 of the German Constitution) and dual broadcasting system, many EMFA regulations may sound self-evident. However, harmonization at EU level ensures that these standards also apply elsewhere, thus creating fair competitive conditions across borders. German media companies benefit if, for example, ownership structures in neighboring countries are more transparent or if a public broadcaster that is politically “aligned” in an EU country no longer distorts the market with hidden state funding. Conversely, German rules – for example on media concentration control – will have to be adapted to the European structure and possibly developed further in order to withstand the exchange within the Board.

The question of competence remains an area of tension: critics could argue that the EU is overstepping its competences with media policy guidelines, as media are sensitive in terms of cultural and constitutional law. However, the Commission has deliberately constructed the EMFA as an internal market measure, arguing that inconsistent regulations and anti-media measures in individual countries distort the free movement of services and competition. This argument is plausible, especially as the EMFA does not exercise any media supervision in terms of content, but rather stipulates structural principles (similar to the fight against corruption or data protection, for example, which are also based on internal market clauses). From a German perspective, compatibility with Article 5 of the Basic Law is given, as the EMFA does not restrict the freedom of the press, but rather substantiates and safeguards it. The core of the fundamental right (free establishment of the press, no censorship) is not affected. On the contrary, the ordinance even implements at the level of simple law what the Basic Law implicitly presupposes: that the media are independent of the state, that diversity is safeguarded and that journalistic work is protected.

In practice, it will depend on how effectively the EMFA is enforced. An EU set of rules is only as good as its implementation on the ground. This is where the European Board for Media Services will play a key role: If, for example, a Member State is reluctant to enforce unwelcome transparency obligations (think of countries where oligarchs close to the government control the media), the Board – supported by the Commission – can exert pressure or create publicity. The same applies to the misuse of state advertising budgets: The new publicity obligations could quickly bring such processes to light and also become an issue within the EU.

The EMFA thus also sees itself as a protective shield against political influence. It offers small, independent media in particular a framework that improves their conditions of existence: if they know that government agencies are not only allowed to place their advertisements with the big pro-government papers, or if they can defend themselves against unjustified blocks on Facebook & Co, this strengthens diversity. The regulation is also a statement against concentration tendencies: Although it does not prohibit media mergers, it does force reflection on diversity of opinion in every major merger. The interplay with German media concentration law (e.g. 30% audience share limit in TV) could be exciting here – the EU requirements may inspire German legislators to introduce stronger merger control for press/online as well, or at least to systematically assess the impact on the public (which goes beyond market share thinking under antitrust law).

For clients – whether publishers, journalists or broadcasters – the EMFA means that media freedom will in future not only be a defensive right against the state, but will be underpinned by positive obligations for all players. Freedom of reporting is thus flanked by transparency, fairness and accountability. This development corresponds to a modern understanding of press freedom: not absolutely unrestricted, but resilient against manipulation.

In conclusion, it can be said that The European Media Freedom Act will shape the media landscape in the EU in the long term. It is a comprehensive legal instrument that strengthens the protective shield for free media on the one hand and defines common rules for a fair media market on the other. Especially in times when the media information space is challenged by digital dynamics, but also targeted attacks (keyword disinformation), the EU is sending a clear signal here. For smaller media and journalists, as they are often advised by specialized IT and media law firms, it is now important to adapt to the new requirements at an early stage – and to take advantage of the opportunities that the EMFA offers for a defensive, pluralistic media order.